One Identity Safeguard Reviews

• Fully transparent for users.
• Supports many protocols.
• Full OCR indexing: You can find anything that happened in sessions, including commands, programs opened, etc. Without OCR, you would only be able to find who did which sessions, but not the content of the sessions or what admins have been doing.
• Non-agent approach: A very important feature that is able to monitor access to devices which are not computers, such as switches, firewalls, or any device which uses SSH, TELNET, HTTPS. You are able to monitor access to the Internet by web browser, because SCB can work as a HTTP/S proxy.

Our customers use it to provide full privileged-access monitoring for external users/administrators, so they are fully compliant and still have easy access to external user’s activity.

VMware PCoIP protocol support: Many customers are switching from normal computers/environment to VDI infrastructure and some of them are switching to VMware Horizon that uses PCoIP protocol, which is not supported right now.

Central management for more SCB boxes: If you have many boxes in a customer infrastructure (right now we have one customer of this kind in POC and they will need eight boxes) with the same configuration/purpose, you have to do everything 8x. I know this feature is on the roadmap, but nobody knows when it will be available.

I’ve been using Balabit for six years.

We have not had stability issues.

We have not had scalability issues.

I give technical support a 4.5/5.

We did not use any previous solutions.

It was super easy to deploy, not complicated, and did not have the hidden Capex that competitors do!

It’s an easy license model; you can choose virtual or hardware appliances.

We evaluated ObserveIT and CyberArk.

Try more functions and use them! It’s a very powerful product; much more complex than all other competitors. But, almost all companies use it on less than 30% of their infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features is that it supports the Linux operating system. Also, the transparent mode for privileged sessions is a very good solution.

On a scale of one to ten, the stability is an eight.

The scalability is great.

Technical support is great. We use the case platform.

We didn't switch from another product. Using this solution has been a great decision in helping with our tasks.

Deployment of the solution took two to three months. Our engineers installed it.

It's a great product for our industry, which is banking.

We use Safeguard to manage users when the client wants to record all discussions on an LDAP. The solution is deployed on a VMware ESXI because all our clients don't want a physical appliance. We average about 300 to 500 connections to Safeguard.

Safeguard has the ability to record and retrieve in the full-video format.

We have issues using Safeguard to record http/https connection in a video formt. Currently, they don't have a mechanism to record this type of connection.

We've been working with One Identity Safeguard for about eight months. I work as an integrator for solutions like PAM and One Identity. We make alterations and integrate the solution. 

We run One Identity Safeguard on a VM, so we can create as many as we need. 

I had an issue about a week ago because we were migrating from an old VM to a new one. I opened a ticket, and they responded, but I didn't get a solution. 

We set up a VM appliance and configured it then deployed the solution. The typical time for deployment and configuration is about three to five days.

I rate One Identity Safeguard eight out of 10. It's an excellent solution and a perfect fit for our use case.

We use it for controlling the client sessions into our data center.

We deployed it into our company for controlling a client's behavior in our data center. It is very useful to control their connections, such as RDP. 

I requested for an evaluation license, but no one responded to me. 

We can't review or audit HTTP and HTTPS. This functionality should be added so that we can review and audit HTTP and HTTPS.

I have been using this solution for less than one year.

It is stable.

It is scalable. It scales well in our company.

I requested them for an evaluation license, but no one responded to me. They didn't give me an evaluation license.

I have some knowledge of Wallix. It is a competitor of One Identity. They have similar functionalities, but I didn't explore it too much.

It was easy. There were no problems. It is easy to navigate through the web interface.

As compared to other products, it is reasonable, but the training sessions are too expensive.

I haven't used other products, but I would highly recommend One Identity SPS.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for managing and monitoring privileged users, both internal and external.

Gave much more visibility over who is doing what and more granular control over external support engineers.

The solution's most valuable features are the efficiency and the quality of the recording.

I would like to see an adjustment with more enterprise architecture. Currently for SPS (SafeGuard for Privileged Sessions) there is only a single appliance option (both virtual and physical). It can be scaled using a load balancer to handle huge amount of sessions (although the device is quite efficient), but it also means you will need to purchase multiple boxes. It would be beneficial to have segregated modules as an option and you could buy and implement them separately. For example: trap module (proxy), audit module (search interface), storage module (store and encrypt recordings), etc.

I've been using the solution for over three years with multiple customers and installations.

The stability of the solution is good.

If your current architecture is not designed for this, then it can it may be difficult to expand beyond a certain amount. Our current biggest deployment is for thousands of users.

Technical support is brilliant. They are very helpful.

I was using other solutions in a lab environment for some demos and comparisons, but in real practice, I have not integrated other solutions.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. However, to figure out how to use it, a consultant or an integrator for new users is highly advised.

We're integrators for the solution. We help clients implement it.

Yes, I made some comparison on CyberArk, BeyondTrust, SSH and CA.

We use the on-premises deployment model. We're an integrator company for this solution.

In terms of advice, I'd say new users should involve the integrator architecture team from the beginning.  From a technical perspective, you need to have discussions with the network team from the beginning.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Privileged management. 

Administrators can administrate the privileged accounts. It is a safer way to monitor the administrators.

Its hardware and compliance.

Stability is very good.

Scalability is very good.

The customer service and technical support are very good.

The initial setup is very easy.

I compared different solutions, like Oracle.

It is a good solution, but it needs more marketing.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• The support
• How long the product has been in the market.

Monitoring and controls privileged access to remote server/appliances for RDP/SSH/HTTP/ICA/VNC protocols

Four-eye authentication and gateway authentication with real-time audit capability

Credential storage and user mapping policies

Inband destination selection with DNS resolve/mapping internal resources

Detailed audit search capability into proprietary video stream for all protocols supported with keylog functions

• Improved security
• Detailed audits for support/maintenance activities done by admin/technician and third-party engineers
• Drastically reduced unauthorized and improper use of systems and servers

The only improvement would be to manage more concurrent sessions.

I have been using it for four years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have encountered scalability issues. The system needs to be properly analysed before putting it into production. Supported protocols have different needs in terms of computing power, and this directly impacts the number of concurrent sessions that can be managed.

absolutely perfect

Technical support is 10/10, absolutely.

I did not previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward, but you need to have a pre-defined plan, know how to implement authentication or the authentication store if used, and also how to do network integration.

I don't know about pricing, but licensing is based on concurrent session through SCB.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

Flexible modes are easily integrated into the customer infrastructure. It's easy to find needed information and the indexer does a good job.

Secure replays: Balabit SCB supports multiple security officers (something like senior and junior officer), who can encrypt upstream, and downstream flows, with different SSL certificates. For example, one officer can see replays, and another officer can only see replays by pressing on a key.

When I worked in a bank, it greatly facilitated the control admins and reduced the length of investigations.

With release 4f4a, I am pleased with the changes. The developers have spent a lot of time optimizing the interface for the convenience of users and it’s functional. Now, I think the best way to improve it will be to optimize the software, because the software begins to consume more resources (physical).

I have been using Shell Control Box for more than two years.

By the new releases, I see that it uses some more resources, but this time it's not affected anything.

We have not had any scalability issues.

I rate technical support 5/5. They are quick and informative.

I tested many another products, but there was an issue about productivity, which was critical to our choice.

Initial setup was easy. There was step-by-step preinstalled software, which took two minutes.

I think it's individual by owner and product.

We evaluated CyberArk and Splunk.

Develop product functional and implementation methods.